scholarly journals Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernesto Anarte ◽  
Gabriela Ferreira Carvalho ◽  
Annika Schwarz ◽  
Kerstin Luedtke ◽  
Deborah Falla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cervicogenic Headache ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Black Scale ◽  
Physical Tests ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Asymptomatic Subjects

IntroductionDifferential diagnosis of migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) can be challenging given the large overlap of symptoms, commonly leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. In order to strengthen the differential diagnosis of headache, previous studies have evaluated the utility of physical tests to examine for musculoskeletal impairment, mainly in the cervical spine, which could be provoking or triggering headache. However, no systematic review has attempted to evaluate whether physical tests can differentiate CGH from migraine or both conditions from asymptomatic subjects.Methods/analysisA systematic review protocol has been designed and is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). A sensitive topic-based search strategy is planned which will include databases, hand searching of key journals and consultation of relevant leading authors in this field. Terms and keywords will be selected after discussion and agreement. Two independent reviewers will perform the search and select studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, including any cohort or observational studies evaluating the topic of this review; a third reviewer will confirm accuracy. A narrative synthesis will be developed for all included studies and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies and the Downs and Black scale for those studies where the QUADAS-2 checklist cannot be applied.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since no patient information will be collected. The results will provide a deeper understanding about the possibility of using physical tests to differentiate cervicogenic headache from migraine and from asymptomatic subjects, which has direct relevance for clinicians managing people with headache. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019135269.

scholarly journals PAX2 in endometrial carcinogenesis and in differential diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Raffone ◽  
Antonio Travaglino ◽  
Gabriele Saccone ◽  
Massimo Mascolo ◽  
Luigi Insabato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endometrial Hyperplasia ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Differentiating migraine, cervicogenic headache and asymptomatic individuals based on physical examination findings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Anarte-Lazo ◽  
G. F. Carvalho ◽  
A. Schwarz ◽  
K. Luedtke ◽  
D. Falla
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Cervicogenic Headache ◽  
Cervical Region ◽  
Neck Flexion ◽  
Neck Extension ◽  
Asymptomatic Individuals ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Flexion Strength

Abstract Background Migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) are common headache disorders, although the large overlap of symptoms between them makes differential diagnosis challenging. To strengthen differential diagnosis, physical testing has been used to examine for the presence of musculoskeletal impairments in both conditions. This review aimed to systematically evaluate differences in physical examination findings between people with migraine, CGH and asymptomatic individuals. Methods The databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE were searched from inception until January 2020. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black Scale for non-randomized controlled trials, and with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. When possible, meta-analyses with random effect models was performed. Results From 19,682 articles, 62 studies were included in this review and 41 were included in the meta-analyses. The results revealed: a) decreased range of motion [°] (ROM) on the flexion-rotation test (FRT) (17.67, 95%CI:13.69,21.65) and reduced neck flexion strength [N] (23.81, 95%CI:8.78,38.85) in CGH compared to migraine; b) compared to controls, migraineurs exhibit reduced flexion ROM [°] (− 2.85, 95%CI:-5.12,-0.58), lateral flexion ROM [°] (− 2.17, 95% CI:-3.75,-0.59) and FRT [°] (− 8.96, 95%CI:-13.22,-4.69), reduced cervical lordosis angle [°] (− 0.89, 95%CI:-1.72,-0.07), reduced pressure pain thresholds over the cranio-cervical region [kg/cm2], reduced neck extension strength [N] (− 11.13, 95%CI:-16.66,-5.6) and increased activity [%] of the trapezius (6.18, 95%CI:2.65,9.71) and anterior scalene muscles (2.87, 95%CI:0.81,4.94) during performance of the cranio-cervical flexion test; c) compared to controls, CGH patients exhibit decreased neck flexion (− 33.70, 95%CI:-47.23,-20.16) and extension (− 55.78, 95%CI:-77.56,-34.00) strength [N]. Conclusion The FRT and neck flexion strength could support the differential diagnosis of CGH from migraine. Several physical tests were found to differentiate both headache types from asymptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, additional high-quality studies are required to corroborate these findings. Study registration Following indications of Prisma-P guidelines, this protocol was registered in PROSPERO on 21/05/2019 with the number CRD42019135269. All amendments performed during the review were registered in PROSPERO, indicating the date and what and why was changed.

scholarly journals Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042525
Author(s):  
Michail Arvanitidis ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Force Steadiness ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

scholarly journals Outcomes of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in Africa: systematic review study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040921
Author(s):  
Ezekiel Musa ◽  
Tawanda Chivese ◽  
Mahmoud Werfalli ◽  
Mushi Matjila ◽  
Shane A Norris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Metabolic Complication ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
In Pregnancy

IntroductionThe prevalence of diabetes mellitus globally has increased considerably over the past decades with a resultant increase in the incidence of diabetes-complicated pregnancies. Hyperglycaemia in pregnancy is the most common metabolic complication encountered during pregnancy and is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. This systematic review aims to examine maternal, fetal, neonatal, childhood and long-term maternal outcomes of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in Africa.Methods and analysisA systematic review of all studies that investigated hyperglycaemia in pregnancy outcomes, carried out in Africa from 1998 to 2019. A comprehensive search of all published articles indexed in PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase and Web of Science databases will be performed. Studies will be screened for eligibility by title, abstract and full text in duplicate by two independent reviewers. For data where meta-analysis is not possible, narrative analysis will be carried out using themes from data. For data where meta-analysis is possible, random effects meta-analysis will be conducted. This systematic review will be reported according to the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study considering this is a systematic review protocol that uses only published data. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184573.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Screening Instruments Used to Identify Postpartum Depression in the Primary Care Setting: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russy Novita Andriani ◽  
Siti Solichatul Makkiyyah ◽  
Amanda Safira Dea Hertika ◽  
Wahyudi Istiono ◽  
Mohammad Hakimi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Postpartum Depression ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Setting ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Screening Instruments ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a prevalent complication of pregnancy, this condition affects maternal and child well-being and functioning. Results from a meta-analysis showed an incidence of 13% PPD cases in the first 12 weeks after labor. Primary care is the first gate and continuing point of care for patients. Despite the controversy of screening and early identification in primary care settings, many PPD cases remain undetected. Given the uncertainty about this issue, screening instruments must be effective in identifying the cases. This systematic review and meta-analyses aim to identify the most suitable postpartum depression screening instrument for use in primary care. Methods PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases were used to search using relevant keywords or MeSH, with limitation of publication from January 1st, 2010 through December 31st, 2020. We will include screening studies on postpartum women using validated screening tools followed by validated structured or semi-structured interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as the reference standard in the primary care setting. Study designs included in the review are cross-sectional and randomized controlled trial without no screening arm on the diagnostic study. We will use a liberal accelerated method on the title and abstract review stage, then perform full-text article reviews on selected studies. Methodological quality will be assessed independently by two authors according to QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). Extraction of the study data will be undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and including a third investigator as necessary. The test characteristics will be extracted into 2x2 tables for all included studies. Study-specific estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals will be displayed in forest plots. Discussion The proposed systematic review and meta-analyses will allow us to obtain the most suitable postpartum depression screening instrument for use in primary care. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020216067

scholarly journals Impact of Chemotherapy in the Adjuvant Setting of Early Stage Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1899
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rizzo ◽  
Margherita Nannini ◽  
Annalisa Astolfi ◽  
Valentina Indio ◽  
Pierandrea De Iaco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Locoregional Recurrence ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Distant Recurrence ◽  
Uterine Leiomyosarcoma ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Locoregional Recurrence Rate ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Although the use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) appears to be increasing over the past few years, several clinical trials and previous meta-analyses failed to determine whether AC could improve clinical outcomes in uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare AC (with or without radiotherapy) versus observation (obs) after primary surgery in early stage uLMS. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) were retrieved. Outcomes of interest were as follows: distant recurrence rate, locoregional recurrence rate and overall recurrence rate. Results about distant recurrence rate, locoregional recurrence rate and overall recurrence rate were compared by calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); ORs were combined with Mantel–Haenszel method. Results: Nine studies were included in the analysis, involving 545 patients (AC: 252, obs: 293). Compared with obs, AC did not reduce locoregional and distant recurrence rate, with a pooled OR of 1.36 and 0.63, respectively. Similarly, administration of AC did not decrease overall recurrence rate in comparison to obs. Conclusion: According to our results, AC (with or without radiotherapy) did not decrease recurrence rate in early stage uLMS; thus, the role of AC in this setting remains unclear.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document